Re-examining Climate Change Data

Government should re-examine the climate data

·                                 BY:BOB CARTER ET AL * 

·                                 From:The Australian 

·                                 April 18, 2012 12:00AM 

TWO recent, widely publicised reports by the government's scientific advisory agencies on climate change have sought to raise alarm yet again about global warming.

With the world having warmed slightly during the late 20th century, CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Climate Commission all advocate that this warming was caused mainly by industrial emissions of carbon dioxide, and that the continuation of emissions unchecked will cause dangerous warming of 3C-4C by 2100.

However, these and other climate agencies are now encountering a public that is increasingly aware of the lack of factual evidence for dangerous warming, and of the speculative nature of the arguments advanced in its favour.

For example, many people now understand that there is no direct evidence that 20th-century warming was caused mostly by carbon dioxide increase; that the late 20th-century warming has been followed by a 15-year temperature standstill in the face of continuing increases in carbon dioxide; and that the models that project alarming future warming are inadequate.

The dangerous warming hypothesis is embodied in the complex climate models that CSIRO and others use to predict the future climate.

But when the model predictions are tested against the latest high-quality data from our best instruments, they are seen to have comprehensively failed.

For example, the models predicted increasing global air temperatures (the measured rises have been much less than predicted), increasing ocean temperatures (there has been no change since 2003, when we started measuring it properly with Argo ocean-diving buoys) and the presence of a hot spot caused by humidity and cloud feedback at heights of 8km-12km in the tropical atmosphere (entirely absent).

The last item is especially important because it shows that the crucial amplification assumed by the modellers and which is responsible for two-thirds of the predicted warming (yes, only one-third is directly due to carbon dioxide) simply does not exist.

Finding that the estimated historic increase in carbon dioxide was not enough to cause dangerous warming on its own, the modellers guessed that atmospheric water vapour would amplify, by a factor of three, any initial carbon dioxide-forced warming.

That this assumed amplification is present in the models but not in reality explains why the models consistently overestimate recent warming.

What then should our government be making of all this?

Well, the government appears to take advice on global warming and climate change from a wide range of sources, which include the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Australian government agencies (CSIRO, BOM), state-based greenhouse or climate-change bodies, rent- seekers from many university climate-related research groups, business lobby groups and consultants and, finally, large environmental lobby organisations (Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace, WWF). Phew.

The reality is, though, that all of these groups and organisations take their lead from, and support the views of, the IPCC (a political body that is unaccountable to Australian citizens).

Their starting assumption is therefore that human-caused global warming exists, that it is dangerous and that the way to avert the danger is to "decarbonise" the planet. The many agencies and groups giving advice are, in fact, just providing multiple conduits for the same repetitive, alarmist message, which derives ultimately from the same IPCC source.

Since the government's carbon tax legislative package passed the Senate last October, Australian press coverage of the global warming issue has been muted, doubtless partly signifying that there have been few government media releases that address the topic since the Senate decision.

That situation changed with a jolt during the week starting on March 12, when a wide variety of news media carried stories about CSIRO's Cape Grim air pollution monitoring station in Tasmania, followed later in the week by publicity for new reports on global warming by CSIRO/BOM and the Climate Commission.

In effect, the week revealed a co-ordinated and highly successful public relations campaign by three of the organisations involved in giving advice on climate change in Australia, with support and advance knowledge among some media editors and reporters. The aim was to rekindle the fast-fading fear of global warming alarm among the general public.

Very little scientific balance or analysis was provided during this week-long barrage of tired, speculative and highly controversial assertions about supposedly dangerous global warming.

Rather than being a new state of affairs, this assault in favour of warming alarmism by Australian climate agencies follows many similar propaganda blitzes during the past 10 years.

As experienced scientists, we have just completed a detailed assessment of the recent reports, which has been added to the list of earlier independent audits of IPCC and Australian reports at Quadrant Online (Google "global warming: an essential reference").

Our analysis of the "new" reports finds that they provide no evidence that dangerous global warming is occurring; nor that human carbon dioxide emissions will cause such warming in future; nor that recent Australian climate-related events lie outside normal climate variability; nor that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will have any discernible impact on future climate.

Therefore, Australian public policies regarding dangerous climate change, sea-level rise and other climatic hazards are based on inadequate scientific advice, which is shackled to the shortcomings of inadequate computer model projections.

The climate models are incompatible with the measured data. In recent decades the model predictions have significantly exceeded the measured temperature rise.

In science, data trumps theory. If data and theory disagree, as they do here, scientists go with the data and revise their hypothesis.

But in politics the opposite is true, for authority figures and political correctness reign supreme. In which context government climate scientists, Western governments and numerous influential lobby groups all strongly support the idea of dangerous global warming, despite the strong contrary evidence.

We conclude that an obvious and urgent need exists for the government to reassess its climate hazard policies. A good starting point would be to implement an unbiased review of the evidence.

Bob Carter is a geologist specialising in paleontology and marine geology. David Evans is a computer modeller and was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office, 1999-2005. Stewart Franks is an associate professor of environmental engineering at the University of Newcastle. William Kininmonth headed Australia's National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology, 1986-98.

Australian Environment Foundation

I strongly support the following statement:-

Holmes & Media Watch versus Dr Marohasy & AEF 

Jonathan Holmes in his Media Watch segment of March 19th attacking Dr.Jennifer Marohasy’s research into the Murray’s lower lakes, raised questions about the very name of the Australian Environment Foundation:  his piece was titled ‘What's in a name?’

Holmes purported to focus his reporting on the question of journalists’ research into those who take public positions.  But Holmes’ main implication was that AEF is pretending to be something it isn’t.  Yes, indeed - it isn’t your typical deep green, issue-driven, highly political advocacy group with an anti-business anti-employment, anti-farming focus.  You don’t have to be a youthful, long-haired, latte-sipping, inner-city dweller to care about the environment.  We aren’t, and we do.

We care particularly when governments base public policy on politics and vote pandering, not on solid research and real evidence.  You have only to look at climate policy in this country to see a glaring example of how this distorted motivation is likely to cost our communities billions of dollars and extinguish thousands of jobs, for absolutely no benefit at all to climate or environment.

Holmes dwelt at length on the origins of AEF, all of which are matters of public record, as they should be.  And what does it matter anyway?  This is a free country where freedom of speech prevails.  AEF like any other group has the right to take any position it chooses.   But the question arises:  how often has Holmes similarly researched the origins and background of deep-green groups?

The real motivation behind Holmes’ take on AEF’s positions is that he doesn’t like them.  He doesn’t like any views that question his belief (for that is what it is) in the supposed need to buy back and divert more MDB water into ‘environmental flows’, just as he dislikes any countervailing views on the still unproven hypothesis that man-made CO2-driven global warming will lead to a climate catastrophe.

As a publicly-paid broadcaster, he has a responsibility to be more even-handed on these issues and to air his prejudices less.

James Delingpole Quote of Note-March 2012

If you're a believer in the great global warming religion, facts are actually your enemy. They're your enemy
a) because they so comprehensively undermine everything you believe in and b) because facts are nasty, horrid things that "deniers" use, whereas true believers have no need of them: faith, that's the thing, pure blind faith.

Outlook Conference and Water

Last week I attended the annual Agricultural Outlook Conference in Canberra for the umpteenth time. I attended my first in 1975 and have only missed two or three since, so perhaps I have been to 40! One of my workmates once pointed out that nearly every year I would say that I wouldn't bother going, yet still went. Not because of the accuracy of forecasts! Who can do that? No one, climate and unforeseeable events make it impossible. But at least one can identify the factors that impact and thus gain better knowledge of how to deal with the risks and monitor changes as they occur. The other big attraction is meeting and mixing with friends with common interests-to use that hackneyed word-"networking".

Another attraction is that I enjoy going back to Canberra. I did most of my limited schooling there as a boarder at Canberra Grammar School, where my mother was the Housemother for Garran House, the junior boarders abode. After the premature death of my father our family had no home-so CGS was it. Most holidays I went home with school mates, mainly to the Miners family at Adaminaby, and I loved it. Horseback droving trips to the Kiandra snow leases, are experiences I will always treasure. When I left school in 1957 Canberra had a population of 27,000-a big country town with lots of VIP's. I knew every inch of the core area from the back of a pushbike. Whilst today it is so much bigger with a population around 380,000, much remains so familiar.

Five elements of the Conference standout. First the general optimism leading to the question of how well are we prepared to do our bit in meeting the demands from the fast growing middle classes of the "Near North".
Second, I much enjoyed a paper from the Australian Farm Institute's Mick Keogh on agricultural risk. Thirdly, the two papers from JBS Australia's (our major abattoir operator) executives brought home our increasing lack of competitiveness and general domestic cost pressures resulting from the appalling policies of the Gillard Government in respect to labour and so called 'climate change'. Fourthly, the rise of animal production (beef and sheep meat) as the most profitable enterprises at the expense of grain. And fifthly (no surprise), a reinforcement from the Murray Darling Basin Plan session that the Water Act (2007) and the Plan are so dreadfully flawed.

This MDB session disturbed me for a number of reasons-

• The opening graph showed no impact from the allocation system which dramatically reduced extractions during the recent drought. There was a broadbrush comment that MDB extractions were usually "around 10 to 11,000 GLS."
• There were many comments such as "recovering water" and "closing the gap" without it would seem an understanding that Government buying entitlements is simply changing ownership from the private sector to the Commonwealth Water Holder (CWH).

According to the ABS, during the most recent years of the drought the very effective water sharing plans for each of the Basin's rivers reduced extractions to-

(GL'S)

2005-06     7369
2006-07     4458
2007-08     3141
2008-09     3492
2009-10      3564
not around "10 to 11,000 GLS".


Water entitlements without allocations amount to 'phantom water'. An 'entitlement' only grants the holder a share of  'allocations' when there are any. The entitlements held by the CWH will apparently still attract allocations (when water is available) and nobody really knows what this new player (the Government) is likely to do with them. So we have a situation whereby before allocations are granted the water sharing plans call for a priority to 'critical human needs' and assessed environmental needs. Once these are met then allocations for'consumptive' use are made. So the CWH gets a second bite, presumably mainly for environmental needs and becomes a player in the water market. This gives rise to some interesting conflicts of interest.


It seems to me that if the assessed environmental needs are not covered adequately  under the water sharing plans, which I doubt, then it is those plans that should be changed. Not have the "dog's breakfast" that is now proposed.


I contend that the fact remains that we have confused the natural impact of a very severe drought with "ill-health" and invalidly blamed it on extractions. A situation which has been wonderfully and dramatically corrected in the time honoured manner by the flood flows of the last three years.


We should  repeal the Water Act and begin the process anew along the lines proposed by a former NSW Director General of Water Resources who has had extensive global experience in river management.


I have serious doubts of the wisdom in centralising control in Canberra. The former MDBC/Ministerial Council approach with all the tensions and debates between the States that water management inevitably involves, was once held up around the world as an example of how to do water management properly.

Water and the Environment

Some 25 years ago, when I first got involved with irrigation on the Darling River at Bourke I was struck by the massive variability of river flows, the apparent unawareness by the water authorities of the magnitude of the bigger flow events, how frequently (but irregularly) they occurred and the exaggerated view that water managers had of their level of control. I was also struck by what I have come to call the "blame factor" with downstream people on virtually every river attributing low flows to the upstream actions of other people rather than the impact of nature. In so many situations I have observed the dynamic nature of flows and the sensible controls imposed on extractors to protect downstream needs. These controls are either not understood or perhaps don't want to be understood. It is so much more satisfying to blame somebody than attribute low flows to the vagaries of nature.

On Tuesday the 6th. March, the Darling River peaked at Bourke at 13.78 metres. This is a daily flow of 240,000 megalitres. That is the equivalent of about one Sydney Harbour every two days. At these heights the river is well out of its huge banks and small height increases represent huge increases in the volume of water. The daily flow figure is about the same as the total "cap" on all irrigation extractions for twelve months along the Barwon /Darling from Mungindi to Menindee. One days flow, yet our critics claim that there are excessive extractions! In low flow times irrigators are not allowed to extract at all.
.
The turnaround in conditions following the record drought and now the big flood events of the last three years, is a classic reminder of how Dorothea Mackellar got is so right with her "droughts and flooding rains".

The conventional wisdom, particularly in our cities, is that our inland rivers are "unhealthy" and that this is due to excessive extractions. This view is judged by our politicians to be so widely held by voters that we have seen politicians of all persuasions, pressured by the green groups, proceed with legislation to further reduce extractions. The natural impact of drought has been painted as the consequence of the misguided actions of man. The turnaround in conditions, entirely due to natural events, goes unacknowledged.

I recently attended a high level NSW Government meeting to discuss the MDB Plan. The meeting was attended by three NSW Government Ministers (part time), MPs, current and former State Government water administrator's, representatives of irrigators, privatised water districts, cotton growers, NSW Farmers and  green groups- the NSW Nature Conservation Council, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Inland Rivers Network.

One thing, in particular struck me-the deep shared knowledge between all in the room except the green groups.They continued to spout their ideological mantra about the need to restore the Murray Darling Basin to good health by further restricting extractions. There was no acknowledgement of the turnaround and an assumption that all those awful drought induced problems could be prevented by limiting extactions. I heard statements about the need to return huge quantities of water (like7,600 gigalitres) to the rivers to "restore them to health". And even a comment that the Basin is on the point of eco-collapse. Apparently no recognition that nature, in its time honoured way, has already fixed the situation, which in any event was not caused by extractions. From my observations and from the many people I talk to who live in the Basin, it has probably never been in better condition.

The other point made by "the greens" was the need to take advantage of the $10bn. available from Government. "A once in a lifetime opportunity'.... If the Gillard Government are looking for every $ to achieve a surplus in 2012/13, these funds might be handy.

I remain greatly concerned that as a consequence of misguided action by Government, as proposed in the Plan, we will cause great socio-economic damage, unnecessarily limit future production, for negligible environmental gain. I often sight the Government purchase of Toorale Station at Bourke as a microcosm of the MDB Plan. If Toorale had continued to operate with all the socio-economic benefits to the Bourke community it would have reduced river flows in 2010/11 by 0.01%!

The Commonwealth Water Act and the Plan are deeply flawed. In particular the use of average flow statistics when there are such massive spreads around the averages, is really nonsensical. This leads to focus on single figures unrelated to actual flows. To ask CSIRO to calculate Sustainable Diversion Limits based on average flows is really a silly question asked by people who clearly have no understanding of the massively variable nature of all of our inland rivers. A set figure based on averages might be far too high in a dry year and absurdly low in a wet year. Limits need to be related to actual flows.

 If we had more dams, in the big wet years, we could store very substantial additional amounts of water, yet they would represent only a tiny percentage of the big flows.


David Boyd
07.03.12

Murray Darling Basin Overview

Base Position
The Millennium Drought had a major impact on the Basin.(The renowned recuperative power of the Australian landscape has been demonstrated in its spectacular recovery since the drought broke.)

Water extractions were well controlled by the adaptive management approach embodied in the allocation process, guided by the Water Sharing Plans. 

Natural impacts from extreme drought are being incorrectly labelled as chronic ill-health.

At the top of the Murray and Murrumbidgee the Snowy Scheme is not being managed in a manner which optimises its original water conservation objectives. 

At the bottom, the Murray River has been deprived of its estuary by The Barrages and this has created serious environmental problems, as has the diversion of fresh water flows in the South-East of S.A. to the sea, flows which once drained to the Southern Lagoon of The Coorong.

Asking the CSIRO to come up with single figure Sustainable Diversion Limits (SDL's) for the rivers within the Basin reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of our inland rivers and their massive variability.To argue that these numbers are "averages" doesn't help, given the enormous spreads around the averages.In using absolute numbers as the MDBA has done, to prescribe acceptable extractions/diversions limits without relating these to actual flows (availability), is really nonsense. 

Ignoring the legal complexities of the Commonwealth Water Act (2007), one has to wonder whether we are proposing to "throw the baby out with the bathwater' in moving to a centralised Commonwealth water management regime. This is particularly the case when one considers the lack of water knowledge and skills at the Commonwealth level.

Our current water bureaucrats could do worse than study how the existing control system operates. It works rather well. 

Used Cars

John Clarke, Bryan Dawes skit [Scene: A car yard. BRYAN is perusing the stock. He is approached by JOHN] John: Morning! Looking for a new car? Bryan : Nope. New Prime Minister, actually. John: You're the third one this morning. Anything in mind? Bryan : You know...... nothing fancy, reliable, economical family model. Something to get the country from A to B. John: You mean like a Howard? Bryan : Yeah...a little Johnny. Nothing flash, does the job. Low maintenance, economical, sensible. Runs for years, no troubles. John: So.... you used to have one? Bryan : Yeah. About 10 years. Great little model - don't know why I got rid of him -- biggest mistake I've ever made. John: What happened? Bryan : Traded him in for a Kevin 07. John: Big mistake. Bryan : Lot of people bought it. Good political mileage. John: How was the Kevin 07? Bryan : Came with a $900 factory rebate - that was good. John: Anything else? Bryan : Not much. Sounded nice but nothing under the bonnet. It was a lemon. John: Didn't stick around for long did it? Bryan : Nah - had a factory recall. Shipped overseas and was never seen again. John: What was the problem? Bryan : Lots. But the final straw was the navigation system. Plug it in and it automatically loses its own way. John: Whatcha got now? Bryan : It's a Gillard-Brown John: The hybrid? Bryan : Yeah. The Eco-drive system - not a good idea. An engine that can't deliver hooked up to a transmission stuck in permanent reverse. John: Green paintwork with a red interior. And steering that always lurches to the left for no apparent reason - that's the one? Bryan : The Fustercluck model. John: The only one they made, Bryan . Not the vehicle of choice for the road to recovery - but did they finish up fixing the navigation system? Bryan : Made it worse. Turn it on and it does a press release, heads off in all directions and goes nowhere. John: So that's why you're here? Bryan : That's right. I'm stuck with a car that's wasteful, expensive, ineffective and past its use by date. I don't suppose you've heard of the "Cash for Clunkers" scheme? John: Join the queue brother.